It might surprise you that the case for increased investment in foreign aid has recently been powerfully articulated by that well-known bleeding heart, David Cameron. Rising to the podium at the G8 Nutrition for Growth conference in June last year, the Tory prime minister championed the value of providing aid to the world’s poorest people: "It says something about this country. It says something about our standing in the world and our sense of duty in helping others.”

As has been well canvassed elsewhere, Britain's economy faces its own challenges. Despite this, Cameron has held his nerve and commitment to those most in need. He has engaged in a difficult political debate, stating that while it might be politically expedient to put aid commitments on the backburner, it is not in the national interest to do so.

By contrast, just days before the 2013 federal election, the incoming Abbott government flagged sweeping cuts to investment in foreign aid. Julie Bishop, the foreign minister, has announced that this year's aid expenditure will be just over $5bn, a decrease of $107m from last year, and $650m less than initially planned in the 2013-14 budget.

This was followed by a decision to cut nearly $8bn in the foreign aid and development budget over the forward estimates – a devastating blow to the aid sector.

All of this makes recent statements by Joe Hockey so worrying. Commenting on the government's anticipated failure to pass budget measures, Hockey said last week that "the most significant individual item in the budget as a savings measure, its a reduction in foreign aid". An ominous sign, as the government searches for future savings in following budgets.

We can’t afford to make foreign policy based solely on an agenda of budget targets. The government’s arbitrary and inconsistent cuts have already caused confusion. For example, despite promising a greater focus on the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions during the election, the Coalition slashed $59.1m in foreign aid to Indonesia this year alone.

At a recent hearing, department of foreign affairs and trade secretary Peter Varghese was prepared to tell a small group of Senators that:

Aid is a key part of pursuing our broader national interests. The stability of our region is fundamental to our national security, and, to the extent that poverty creates instability and uncertainty, anything which gets economies on an economic growth path is in our strategic interests.

The federal government certainly isn’t making the case that increasing foreign aid is in our national interest. While all major parties have signed up to the goal of increasing development aid to 0.5% of gross national income (about double what we are spending now), successive implementation delays have made the reality of this ever being achieved unlikely.

It was reported that the federal government will shift the focus of foreign aid away from poverty reduction as a primary goal, in favour of promoting what Bishop has described as “economic diplomacy”.

It is undeniable that economic growth provides broad benefits to society, and many poverty reduction projects would also aid economic development. But while the government says it is seeking to reemphasise the importance of benchmarks and achieving measurable outcomes in foreign aid, this approach threatens to complicate the task.

There must also necessarily be an equity dimension to the aid program, as the rising gap between the richest and poorest people in aid recipient countries shows that the benefits risk being concentrated with a small number of rich people in poor nations.

Australia punches above its weight due to our reputation as a trusted and respected global citizen. Foreign aid is a crucial part of that. Sometimes there is a sense that cutting assistance to those beyond our borders is popular at home. Funds clawed back this way are easy money to find politically, but leave us worse off, and not just because the loss of this investment impacts negatively in an increasingly globalised world.

A spirit of generosity is a crucial part of our national identity. It may be a rare thing for a Labor politician to express admiration for a conservative British leader. I’d much rather it was an Australian prime minister, not just a British one who was prepared to say as Cameron did: "We accept the moral case for keeping our promises to the world's poorest even when we face challenges at home. When people are dying, we don't believe in finding excuses. We believe in trying to do something about it."